This bill should fit South Dakota like Danny Glover.
Hey, South Dakota Legislature! If you can consider House Bill 1087 to keep kids safe, then surely you can round me up a sponsor for this public health and safety bill:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to authorize individual school boards to create, establish, and supervise individual school prophylactic programs to promote sexual health.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. Any school board may create, establish, and supervise the distribution of condoms in such manner and according to such protocols as the board, in its sole discretion, may believe to be most likely to protect the school, its students, its staff, and members of the public against the threat of unplanned pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and any other risk associated with sexual activity.
Section 2. Before any school board may implement any school prophylactic program pursuant to section 1 of this Act, the school board shall interface with any health care providing organization in its district. Any material changes in the school prophylactic program's personnel or protocols shall be reported to such health care providers forthwith.
Section 3. No school board, in implementing the provisions of section 1 of this Act, may require any individual teacher or other school employee to carry condoms without the latter's free, willing, and voluntary consent. No individual teacher or other school employee may be censured, criticized, or discriminated against for unwillingness or refusal to carry condoms pursuant to this Act.
Section 4. No provision of § 13-33-6.1 or any other provision of state statute is effective to restrict or limit the provisions of this Act. However, nothing in this Act authorizes any person to make animal balloons out of condoms on school grounds.
Section 5. The failure or refusal of any school board to implement a school prophylactic program does not constitute a cause of action against the board, the school district, or any of its employees.
This bill has everything. It addresses the very real threat of sexually transmitted diseases: rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea have been climbing in South Dakota at much faster rates than school shootings, and consistent and correct use of condoms can reduce the risk of transmitting STDs. It provides local control, giving local school boards the ability to meet the local needs of their students as they see fit. It provides a conscience clause for school personnel who fret that making condoms visible on campus might send the wrong message to students. And just in case some school district doesn't see the wisdom of providing their students with this cheap yet effective protection, this bill protects gives them legal protection from parents who try to sue the school for letting their kids get the clap by not handing out condoms.
Rep. Rev. Craig and Rep. Rev. Hickey should love this bill! Maybe they can hoghouse Senate Bill 69... since my bill would surely provide plenty of diversion for our health professionals.
Unlike gun free zones, "abstinence zones" likes schools and any other public place appear to be working just fine. Unless there is some media blackout on this, to my knowledge, society has not digressed anywhere near the point to where kids are getting gonorrhea, or worse HIV Aids, while AT school. If society did reach this place where this was a problem AT school during school hours I'd be the prime sponsor of a bill that, unlike condoms, would actually stop the problem... a bill to ban a co-ed campus. Condoms are already readily available for use in the various places where these diseases are being spread. That place is not a school so schools can let other entities deal with that problem and they can stay on task.
Here's a hot potato for you: if the problem persisted with same sex assaults on innocent bystanders at school, obviously more would need to be done. That issue aside, if we ever did reach the place where these diseases were being spread AT school, during open hours, in class, (and we know they are spread via sexual activity) then let's be honest... we have reached a level of decadence that can't be fixed with condoms. So your silly satirical bill is superfluous at worst, premature at best.
To my knowledge, school officials in SD aren't asking for condoms. There ARE some asking for the freedom to enhance security as approved by the school board. One of the principals of one of our largest high schools is saying he'd definitely be carrying a gun if his school board would approve it.
Spin it how you want, Cory. This bill IS local control which is exactly what you wanted last year. Please tell me, which school board in SD do you not trust to do what is best in their setting? There is not a one sized fits all solution to make SD schools safer. This is a permissive bill and the discussion can move to the local level so parents who it affects are part of the process.
More seriously, have you ever been within arms length of several dead children at once. I have (not do to a shooting, but the result is the same). This is not funny. Kids who are innocent and simply there to learn are being slaughtered AT school, during open class time hours. This isn't something to compare with sexual promiscuity and condoms.
Gun free zones aren't working and it takes a special kind of stupid to actually believe some insane person equipped to and intending to kill many people would stop at a gun-free zone sign.
I do support and have encouraged the leaders in our mental health agencies to a massive "early warning sign" education campaign, in schools, so we know what to look for in those who have a propensity to violence.
There is something really comforting about reading Steve Hickey's powerlessness in a liberal blog and that my daughters have nurses with prescriptive authority living among them.
So maybe I missed it, Steve, but did you say that, given your love of local control, you'd be fine with allowing school districts to use their state aid to purchase and distribute condoms on school grounds if they feel that's a positive policy response to local hazards?
Hickey's on the clock for jesus today, Cory: he won't take me on. Either delete my comments or expect him to stay away.
hmmm. preventing unwanted pregnancies, which would automatically reduce the possibility of a young girl to consider an abortion?? Which would subsequently amount to less abortions? How does that not make any sense to people?
Let's admit that kids are sexually active. Don't we want them to be educated to help them prevent STD's or unwanted pregnancies? Makes sense to me! I like this "bill" Cory! And I like the point that you are making.
Dana: white people are frightened that they are being out-bred. It's just that simple
So, if we get rid of gun free zones. What law would a police officer use to stop a crazy person from walking into a school with an assault rifle? I would have to say they are just practicing their constitutional right - up to the moment they open fire.
Jeremiah makes a very good point.
Condoms for guns.
"Abstinence zones" and all the money pissed away on "abstinence" as a policy have been wasted. Abstinence may be smart personal behavior and philosophy, but abstinence as a policy solution is as absurd as prayers to prevent global warming or tornadoes that destroy church steeples.
What's stopping the crazy person now Jeremiah?
I hope you're not gonna tell me a crazy person is stupid enough to let a cop see him with any weapon drawn?
Btw Jer, what assault rifle was used in Newtown? Didn't NBC have a story on four handguns and no rifle? Four hand guns? I wonder who and where the other shooter is and went?
I can't speak to the logic crazy people utilize when they engage in a school shooting Les.
Here are a couple sources that say an assault rifle was the primary weapon used in Newtown:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/19/bushmaster-223-weapon-used-in-newtown-shooting-a-lightning-rod-in-gun-debate/
I'm looking for a legitimate news source to confirm your NBC claim, I will let you know when I find one.
Other shooter? Le - I have no idea what you are talking about.
Crazy isn't stupid was my point Jeremiah.
.
Here is the NBC link with Pete Williams.
.
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495
.
It doesn't mean this is fact any more than most of the rubbish we are expected to believe. This link speaks of four handguns recovered on the scene with no rifle. Did Adam truly have four handguns or was there another shooter with Adam left holding the bag.
Deflection.
I don't understand why our solution to the crazy person problem we have is to buy more guns.
Robbie Parker, speaking of crazy, happily laughing before an on camera heartbreaking statement of daughter Emilie's death.
.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=aCqOMdcutWQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaCqOMdcutWQ
.
When my young nieces 5 year old daughter was taken from her there was no smile for weeks after the event, possibly months.
.
I can't quite figure where to put a condom in all this mess. Probably 45-55 years back, or however old our Chief Gunrunner is, was the missed opportunity.
Where is the deflection Jer? Be specific, I'm slow.
Maybe it's drift. I have nothing more to add to the condom conversation, but I do agree that it is all the president's fault.
That'd be prez GW's fault Jer. We are in forty years of penance for that louse and O is just the beginning.
Good call. I blame Reagan for the crazy people though.
"I do support and have encouraged the leaders in our mental health agencies to a massive "early warning sign" education campaign, in schools, so we know what to look for in those who have a propensity to violence."
Steve I'm guessing that there wasn't a single doctor that told you that there is a "sign" because there isn't a reliable "sign" for something like this.
If you were to look real close you could find a different kind of sign that might indicate there were going to be problems in the future. Its called "bullying" and it is a problem right now that can be dealt with if our leaders wanted to except the fact that it might be an all sports athlete, girl or boy, a rich kid, or miss or Mr. popular that is causing the problem.
We have all seen it happen to kids. Most of the time we didn't do anything about it because, well because the kids doing the bullying were important people and doing so wouldn't have been the best thing for us either. But teachers, principals, coaches, they should have known better but most of the time they don't give a damn if it means that their pet would get in trouble.
How about a real bill to address this problem Steve. The future is in your hands right now and it isn't about putting guns in the classroom its about keeping a human being from going insane in the future that is being bullied today.
My god if you were playing poker the sign would be called a "tell" and it couldn't be clearer if the person was holding his cards face up.
These kids are not looking to just kill someone, they don't mind taking themselves out to. Doesn't that tell you something. Guns are bad of course but the technology is out there for these same people to carry things that are far worse then a gun into the school if they want to kill lots of people.
Lets start fixing the problem where the problem starts.
The Blindman
Another gun suicide reported to relatives in the Winner community. Small town, but enough of them to catch a sane person's attention.
Hickey's right. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that putting an armed guard in a school is going to actually stop an insane person from driving up to the playground and opening fire. How many kids could that maniac kill without even setting foot on school grounds?
SD needs to start filling the national database with the names of people determined to be mentally ill, those with felony convictions, those with disqualifying domestic violence misdemeanors, those with protection orders. And there ought to be background checks required for every gun sold no matter who sells it. Fact is, there's no reliable way to keep these disqualified folks from buying guns now, and there's no penalty for selling them to disqualified people. It's time to put the "well regulated" back into the 2nd amendment discussion.
PP twists off as Madville approaches 1.5 million hits: gawd he's a loser.
Cory,
I think you & I are on the same page that encouraging more firearms in schools is a poor idea. I'm open to dedicated armed security, but I think that should be wholly the purview of the community in question; we don't need a one-size-fits-all approach. Heck, I still think with SD's appreciable lack of violent crime, we don't need to worry about this at all.
However, Just as I believe it isn't the duty of schools to provide firearms for their teachers & staff, I don't think it should be the duty of the school to provide free prophylactics. If students wish to copulate, it sure as heck shouldn't be on school grounds over the lunch hour.
If parents/adults want to donate prophylactics, and have them available on campus, fine. But anyone who wants a condom can go just about anywhere - supermarkets, gas stations, restrooms, etc. and purchase one for less than the cost of a soda. There are no age restrictions, background checks, or laws regarding their sale. Heck, with self checkout there's not even recriminating looks to be had from the person behind the checkout.
"Penicillin can wipe out syphilis with just one shot. As the antibiotic came into wide use in the 1950s, the number of syphilis cases and syphilis deaths plummeted. And that's when teen pregnancies and illegitimate births began to rise — long before the invention of the birth control pill."
http://kcur.org/post/did-penicillin-rather-pill-usher-age-love